State the range for e-waste generated (in kg per person) for the countries shown.

Identify which raw material is produced in the largest amount when e-waste is recycled.

Describe the relationship between GNI per person and average growth rate of EEE consumption.

To what extent does the evidence in the infographic support the view that e-waste is a global problem?

0.4 to 28.5 (or 28.1)

Iron

Award [1] per valid point. Some quantification needed for full marks.

Possibilities include:

• negative correlation [1]
• recognition of lowest GNI as an anomaly [1].

Award [1] for each valid point supported by evidence taken from the infographic, up to a maximum of [5].

Award a maximum of [4] if only one side of the argument is given.

Award the final [1] for an overall appraisal, which weighs up the infographic as a whole.

Support:

• Reference to all continents involved in the recycling of waste
• Reference to the amount/scale of e-waste that is produced
• Reference to the rate of growth of e-waste
• Reference to the small amounts that are recycled
• Reference to the contribution of e-waste to hazardous waste in landfills
• Reference to the pollution e-waste produces
• Reference to the movement of e-waste from HICs to MICs/LICs

Against:

• Reference to the money that can be produced by e-waste
• Reference to value of recovered minerals
• Reference to employment given by recycling e-waste
• Reference to global variability of rates of e-waste production/growth/recycling
• Reference to HICs being more problematic as they produce the most

For example: The world map shows that all continents send or receive e-waste [1]. The table below the map demonstrates that the production of waste is more of a problem in HICs than LICs [1]. Norway produces the most with 28.5 kg/person whilst Niger produces the least with 0.4 kg/person [1]. However many valuable minerals can be recovered from e-waste such as gold [1]. The photograph shows that recycling also provides jobs for people [1]. Thus although e-waste is an issue at a global scale it can also have some benefits for the countries that import it [1].

There were no issues with these questions with candidates showing good preparation to conduct calculation and resource analysis.

Most candidates were able to identify and describe the trend shown in the data. Some failed to identify the anomaly whilst others did not use the information to quantify their answers.

The better answers were structured around a review of whether e-waste was or was not a global problem. Good candidates had been prepared to use the information provided in the infographic to address their comments in support of or against the issue identified. Most took the view that it was a problem and commented on the spatial range and magnitude coverage of the problem. Many gave too much focus to the global aspect of the question, and this led to unbalanced answers that did not recognize the value of recovered materials or employment. Those that had been well prepared gave a structured response with a supported conclusion. Examiners did report that a number of candidates drifted into an evaluation of the presentation and failed to use the information in the infographic to assess whether e-waste was a global problem. This approach did not gain credit.